Routine licence re-testing - would you support it?

Originally Posted by philbut

i'd prefer to see a longer and more comprehensive driving test (look at Finland for example) so anyone who does have a licence can actually drive well to begin with.

Agreed. I took my car test in April 1979, it was all done and dusted and I drove away with a pass after 20 minutes. Many years later I went for a job as a contracted test driver at Millbrook Proving Ground - my test to drive in their facility took the best part of a day and I had to do a stringent medical before I was allowed to even sit in the driver's seat. I passed, but it was the toughest test I had ever taken and involved driving at very high speed (140mph plus), handling circuits, off-road driving and a number of high and low speed manouvering tests.

Something like that would be more worthwhile

Originally Posted by philbut

no - passing a driving test is pi$$ easy, and proves that you know how to drive in the test. it doesn't prove you can actually drive in the real world - hence why so many drivers have an accident in the first year. All it would do is make money from people. The police are meant to stop idiots from driving. Good motorists already pay for all the morons with sky high insurance, why shoud; we have to dip into our pockets again to weed out the minority who shouldn't be on the road in the first place. i'd prefer to see a longer and more comprehensive driving test (look at Finland for example) so anyone who does have a licence can actually drive well to begin with.

I voted yes, but that's a good point!

Hmmmm it's a difficult one, theres too many wally's on the road. And that just me, paulthe6th and davenumbers... nevermind the rest.

I'm going to say no for the simple selfish reason being i know i can drive wiyh a general awarness to driving safely (not suggesting im perfect). Infact i have found rapidly since having my bike lisence for a year (yesterday) that i have slowed right down am constantly checking mirrors, much more aware.

I think prehaps bringing in more awareness to the affects of dangerous overtaking and general awareness to other road users would be more beneficial granted i live on the IOM and see terrible attempted overtaking (only one place with a 1/2 mile overtaking lane and ignorance for slamming the brakes before signalling etc.... etc...

[Bri w]

Some have commented that passing a (re)test isn't relevant as anyone can pass a test.
1) Its a relevant test because its tests driving not knitting.
2) Its done in the 'live' environment, and again that makes it relevant.
3) It aims for a level of driving skill but quite rightly doesn't ask you to be an 'advanced' driver.

There are good drivers and bad drivers in every age group but some young drive for the adrenaline kick and some older become too hesitant and tentative. I fall into the latter group, and in recent years feel I've become more hesitant compared to say 10 yrs ago. Yes, I'd probably still pass a test but I am aware of my failings and I'm not arrogant that I feel there's nowt wrong with my driving or that I'll be safe to drive till the day I snuff it.

Turn the question on its head, let everyone drive without recourse to measure their ability and ask yourself how you'd feel if you were on the receiving end of an incompetnet driver who would have failed a retest.

Absolutely no! as I've said many times before - it's not fair on those who suffer with extreme nerves under test conditions.

However I think the bad driving/riding could be drastically improved if people were compelled to take advanced training - bikes and cars - even if just one day's worth - no test, just the training.

Originally Posted by ArtyLady

Absolutely no! as I've said many times before - it's not fair on those who suffer with extreme nerves under test conditions.

However I think the bad driving/riding could be drastically improved if people were compelled to take advanced training - bikes and cars - even if just one day's worth - no test, just the training.

I'd be in favour of "refresher lessons" more than a retest. Something like bikesafe every 5 years maybe just to make you think about the way you drive a bit more. This would be an oportunity for trained assesors to spot if anyone had any serious issues (ie loss of sight or mental function) that meant they really shoudln't be on the road - not through bad driving, just that the person in question had some physical or mental condition that didn't allow them to be sufficiently in control.

[timwilky]

Having just done a days training and come away thinking I learned something, and done some training about 8 years ago with an ex met instructor. I would suggest that rather than test drivers, require they undertake a course once in a while.

Many businesses are now requiring business drivers to do this sort of thing, the lease companies are suggesting it etc. Test No, Train yes.

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by cb1000rsteve

but without testing how do i know i'm doing it correctly??

How would a test help? Bike test is riding in straight lines around town and cornering with the clutch slipping, how is that valid for anything? You ever hear of a death caused by putting a foot down in U-turn?

I proved the pointlessness of this myself. I passed my bike test then went back to riding like a complete kn*b just as I did before. What did test do? Nowt!

[DavieSV]

I would be in favor of continual development points going to reduce my insurance.

Prove you have some training each year and get a reduction on the insurance bill

That would save pounds per year and keep people up with current standards and laws.

Those that choose not to do it can foot the bill of cr4p drivers claims through higher insurance

do you know how much that would set me back ,if they did it i would have to retest on all my licences, of which i hold 11
you can take a running jump